such a nature that his character and reputation has been damaged, and he would like to testify before this body.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, he has that right.

Mr. MORRIS. In addition, Senator, there are certain aspects of Mr. Wallace's testimony that relate to the Institute of Pacific Relations, and we would like to have that accepted in the ordinary course of this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. You can bring that up in your questions as you see fit.

Mr. MORRIS. I think, Senator, I would like to go into the latter at the outset.

Mr. Wallace, did you write a booklet for the Institute of Pacific Relations at any time?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, in April and May of 1944 I wrote a booklet entitled "Our Job in the Pacific."

Mr. MORRIS. Will you relate to us the circumstances preceding your writing that booklet?

Mr. WALLACE. After it had become public knowledge that I had been designated by President Roosevelt to go on a mission to China, a representative or representatives of the Institute, and I do not know which

Mr. MORRIS. You do not know who they were?

Mr. WALLACE. I do not know which, whether it was one or whether it was more than one who called on me, and I do not have any way of ascertaining unless that could be obtained from the institute.

I do remember very clearly that sometime in March or early April Mrs. Lattimore did call on me with the proposal that I write the pamphlet, and I indicated that I was very short of time with this trip coming on, that I couldn't take the time to write the pamphlet, that I did have certain ideas that I would very much wish to get on the record, that I was honored by the-I am not sure I said that I was honored by it, but in retrospect I would say I was honored by the request.

Senator FERGUSON. Did she indicate she was representing the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes; that was very clear she was representing the Institute of Pacific Relations.

So we did work together. I dictated quite a mass of material to Mrs. Lattimore.

Mr. MORRIS. You dictated it to Mrs. Lattimore?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes.

Mr. MORRIS. Did she take it down in shorthand?

Mr. WALLACE. No, she took it down in outline. I don't think she is an expert in shorthand. She may be. I don't know as to that. Anyhow, I did dictate a mass of material in outline to Mrs. Lattimore. I got various friends to work on certain other aspects of the important investment problem in China, that is, people who had been in the Board of Economic Warfare when I was there.

Mr. MORRIS. Will you identify those for the committee, Mr. Wallace?

Mr. WALLACE. I don't remember their names. I remember they were in the Board of Economic Warfare. It may be that I just sent the word out to get that material. I don't think it is relevant to whatyou are after here because I don't think there is any discussion with

regard to the nature of that material and the section on investment. So far as I know, there is not, so I think it would be quite proper not to go into that side of it.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Wallace, one of the issues here concerning the testimony was whether or not you were guided by Communists.

Mr. WALLACE. I can assure you that nobody who gave me this information on investments was a Communist or ever mentioned as a Communist, I can assure you that.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know whether there were any in your department?

Mr. WALLACE. The Board of Economic Warfare?
Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Mr. WALLACE. I did not know at the time. I have been told since that there were. As a matter of fact, I have been trying to get information on that on this trip, but so far I have not been able to do it. I do know that Mr. Dies alleged there were. I do know one of the men he mentioned threatened suit against Mr. Dies, and Mr. Dies withdrew the allegation on the floor of the House, and the House recompensed him to the extent of attorney's fees amount to $800 or $900 for the damage he had done this man.

Senator FERGUSON. Was that one of the men who furnished any of the material?

Mr. WALLACE. I don't think this man was. I am quite sure he was not because he was in an administrative position.

Mr. MORRIS. In view of what we have just said, you will agree that was a proper inquiry?

Mr. WALLACE. I will agree that it is a proper inquiry, but I am sure you will also agree that in a public hearing damage could be done to any people that might be mentioned in connection with this particular matter even though there is absolutely nothing that is valid, absolutely nothing, and I think if you will read the section on investment you will agree.

There is no valid criticism or there can be no suggestion by anyone there is anything of a Communist nature in the section on investments. As a matter of fact, it stands out quite clearly, you might say, as a free-enterprise proposal with regard to investments.

Mr. SOURWINE. You have no fear, have you, that the naming of someone as a person who helped you prepare material for this booklet would damage that person in any way?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, I would say, with the type of publicity that has been current and with the atmosphere that exists in Washington today, that would tend to be the net effect. That is really what I feel.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you want the committee to understand that you are going to decline to answer questions with regard to matters which you do not consider relevant?

Mr. WALLACE. Now I certainly shall not do anything to stand in contempt of the committee or, as a matter of fact, to make a statement which the committee would feel is not cooperative. I just urge on this committee this point of view, and I think the committee will agree it is a just view.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. With reference to counsel, you have a right, but you are not going to sit alongside of the witness and whisper to him what his answers are going to be.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I know that we do not want to have a continual disturbance here, and I am sure counsel does not want to, either. What about having counsel sit at some little distance from the witness so he can object at the proper time when anything is asked and do it on the record?

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Wallace, you said just then, and I quite appreciate what you have in mind, that whenever you make a statement, a public record, it could hurt somebody under the present state of the public mind.

Now does that not in your opinion, as has been the opinion of the committee, justify some sessions of this committee in executive session for the purpose of seeing whether or not there is any real background?

Mr. WALLACE. I quite appreciate the feeling of the committee with regard to holding closed sessions in order to protect the reputations of people, and I have heard the committee so state, and the counsel of the committee so state. I think it is a fine thing that the committee is taking this enlightened position, and in accordance with this enlightened position I feel if the committee feels there is anything in this section dealing with investments that bears on the case in point, why, I shall certainly be most glad to answer.

But unless you do feel that, I would hope that you will let my refusal to answer stand.

Senator SMITH. In other words, in that connection there may be instances in which you would feel that a public disclosure of a person's name might do him some damage, and therefore you would prefer to answer a question of that sort in executive session where he could be protected?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes; I think that would be fair to the people involved.

Senator FERGUSON. May I inquire as to whether Mrs. Lattimore, or anyone in the Institute of Pacific Relations, indicated what they wanted you to write about?

Mr. WALLACE. I don't remember exactly what she or they, as the case may have been, might have said. I do know that I had long had an interest in this part of the world.

As a matter of fact, it is my recollection I gave to President Roosevelt back in 1933 or 1934 a book by one of the witnesses before this committee, Professor McGovern, an outline of the history of China. It is my recollection he was the author of this particular book, and I called attention to certain segments of this book dealing with China. So my interest was long standing.

So when I was going to go on this trip to China, I felt it was a unique opportunity, since the institute had indicated their interest, to put certain of my views on the record.

Senator FERGUSON. But they came to you and initiated the project? Mr. WALLACE. They initiated it. I did not initiate it.

Mr. MORRIS. So that the record may be accurate on this, Mr. Wallace, I think the question addressed to you was, Do you know the names of the people who supplied this information from the Board of Economic Warfare?

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment.

Senator McMahon, will you have that seat at that separate table?

Mr. WALLACE. I can remember one name.

Mr. MORRIS. Will you give us that name in executive session? Mr. WALLACE. Yes, of course I will give you that name in executive session.

Mr. MORRIS. Do you recall any other names?

Mr. WALLACE. No, I don't. He worked with the various people. Of course, at that time it was the FEA; it was not the Board of Economic Warfare. He may have consulted with men who were in the FEA. I don't know whether he was in FEA at that time or notI have forgotten-but he had been in FEA, I know, and in the Board of Economic Warfare, and I wanted to get this highly technical material. This man saw that I did get it.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in that connection I think we ought to have a clear understanding about this. Mr. Wallace has said that he will give this name and other names in executive session. I presume that all of us understand that anything given in executive session may, upon a decision by the committee, be thereafter used, after consideration is given to it?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, the witness should know that.
Senator FERGUSON. Otherwise we could not write a report.

Mr. WALLACE. I may say, however, that you will find in reading over this section there is no reason in the world for incorporating it in any report of any nature. I think you I think you will agree with me, if you will look into the facts, that there is absolutely no purpose to be served, and I suspect you will not care to press the matter in executive session if you will look into the data in this particular segment.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, in justice to Mr. Wallace, I think it should be made clear that he has not refused to tell the committee here. He has simply requested the opportunity to defer that answer until we have an executive session.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very clear and very well understood. Senator SMITH. If that is his judgment, I am willing to abide by that for the present in order that those persons may be protected.

The CHAIRMAN. The very aim and object of the committee in holding executive sessions was to weed out and eliminate any possible testimony that might do injury to an innocent person. We have been criticized for that procedure very severely. But we will persist in that procedure nevertheless with the hope that we may eventually work out something that the American public and the Congress of the United States may have confidence in.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Mandel, will you read the designated sections from that pamphlet that we have introduced in executive session?

Mr. MANDEL. I read from page 14 of Our Job in the Pacific, by Henry A. Wallace:

Today the peoples of the east are on the march. We can date the beginning of that march from 1911 when the revolutionary movement among the Chinese people, inspired by the teachings of Sun Yat-sen, overthrew the Manchu dynasty and established a republic. This was the first time in the vast and culturally rich history of Asia that an Asiatic people turned its back on the whole principle of monarchy and hereditary rule and, in spite of the difficulties and obstacles that still remained, set out courageously toward the attainment of democracygovernment of the people, by the people, for the people, through the elected representatives of the people. The march was joined later by the Russians, and the many non-Russian peoples of the Soviet Union who link Europe with Asia across the greatest land mass of the earth, when the October revolution opened the way for the peasant to move in and begin to take over his own land.

Mr. MORRIS. Will you continue reading those excerpts, Mr. Mandel? Mr. MANDEL. On page 24 of the same pamphlet, speaking of free Asia when the war ends:

Free Asia will include first of all China and Soviet Asia, which form a great area of freedom, potentially a "freedom bloc," which it is to our interest to have become a freedom bloc in fact.

Then on page 28:

The Russians have demonstrated their friendly attitude toward China by their willingness to refrain from intervening in China's internal affairs.

Then on page 30:

Russian interest in the Far East is not likely to be that of territorial expansion. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Wallace, I understand from your testimony in executive session that there are certain passages in that pamphlet you would like to call to the attention of the committee.

Mr. WALLACE. Following the hearing in executive session-let me put it this way-in the first place, not all these passages were introduced in executive session.

Mr. MORRIS. You did read from your pamphlet in executive session? Mr. WALLACE. Yes. I did read in response to a question from Senator Watkins, I believe, who read the first part of the section quoted on page 14, and I read the remaining part, as is my recollection.

The other pages were not introduced in executive session, I think you will find, although I think it is your intent to have them, and I think it is quite agreeable to me to comment on them now.

Pursuant to the question raised by Senator Watkins, who felt that this must not be my idea but must be somebody else's, I wrote him a letter on October 11. I suggest that this letter be introduced in the record, and now might be a proper time to introduce it in the record.

DEAR SENATOR WATKINS: I feel I must clear up any question of my responsi bility for the thoughts expressed on page 14 of the pamphlet Our Job in the Pacific.

If you can have your secretary get from the Congressional Library the little pamphlet the Price of Free World Victory, by Henry A. Wallace, you will note on page 15 a very similar idea expressed. Then if you will read the comments at the end of this very short pamphlet [it was really a reprint of my May 8, 1942, speech] you will gather from George Fielding Elliott, Raymond Clapper, and Dorothy Thompson an insight into the temper of the times.

We were fighting for our lives, and the Senate of the United States had authorized the President to do everything he could in cooperation with England and Russia to defeat Germany.

As it is put on page 525 of Henry Stimson's book on active service: "The central political decision of World War II was that it must be fought in an alliance as close as possible with Great Britain and Soviet Russia." Not once during the war was this decision questioned or any modification of it seriously considered by Stimson or by any man whose views he knew among the leaders of the administration.

The three nations and America form the indispensable team for victory over Germany together. With or without welcomed and helpful accessions of strength from smaller nations they could not lose. Apart or at cross purposes or with any of them defeated, they could

there is a word left out here

hardly fail to win. It was thus the constant purpose of the American Government to do all that would achieve a cherished cordial unity of action and so to reinforce its two great allies from the vast American reservoir of material wealth, that each would press on with increasing power to a final combined victory.